Read more!

The free press

The year is 1961. A woman in the UK gives
birth to her child. But something is wrong. The newborn child has deformed
limbs.

The cause was Thalidomide – a drug first
produced in 1957 in Germany, and released in the UK in 1958. It was popular
with many pregnant women for reducing morning sickness. Unfortunately,
Thalidomide caused devastating harm to unborn babies. Over 10,000 children
across the world were born with severe birth defects. The drug manufacturer,
Distillers, entered talks with the victims’ families to compensate them for the
damage caused by the drugs.

Meanwhile, there was a swelling of public
outrage. The Sunday Times launched a campaign in support of the victims.
However, the Attorney General stopped the publication of a particular article which detailed the history and negligence involved in the drug’s development.
The Attorney General argued that the article would be a contempt of court,
as it would unfairly influence the on-going negotiations between the victims’
parents and Distillers.

The European Court of Human Rights ruled that
the Attorney General violated the Sunday Times’s right to freedom of
expression. They said that “the thalidomide disaster” was “a matter of
undisputed public concern”. Therefore, the press had a right to inform the
public about the facts of the case, and the victims’ families had a right to
learn the truth about the drugs.

The legacy of Thalidomide remains with us. The
drug is still used – albeit in limited circumstances – to help treat cancer
patients. Surviving victims are still fighting to gain compensation. Yet this
story shows that in a case of exceptional public interest, the general public
have a right to know the truth behind a tragedy.

Prisoner
voting and civil death

“Don’t
do the crime if you can’t do the time.” We’ve all heard this muttered by a
bad-talking TV cop slapping handcuffs on a villain. There’s a point to the
phrase. Punishment makes sure that justice is done. And justice must be done.
It is the foundation for any healthy society.

But the European Court of Human Rights
ruled that justice does not require a blanket ban to stops all prisoners
from voting. The Court’s judgment was based on a case brought to it
by John Hirst, who had been convicted of manslaughter. He claimed that he
was denied his right to regular, free and fair elections because he was not
allowed to vote.

The case should have had a significant effect on many prisoners
– not just Hirst. The judges accepted that the right to vote did not need to be
given to every prisoner. But they also argued that a blanket ban could not be
justified for two reasons. First, voting is a right and not a privilege:
it is something we are all automatically entitled to just by being citizens,
not something that needs to be earned by good behaviour. The government was
therefore wrong to say that people who have behaved badly can automatically
be stopped from voting.

Second, a blanket ban does not distinguish
between different prisoners, who have committed different crimes. The
punishment is meant to fit the crime. We even have different types of prisons
for different types of offences. So why should all prisoners be subject to the
exact same extra punishment?

Daily Telegraph, 13 December 2013

This case is probably more famous for the
anger it caused in the UK than the outcome. That controversy has meant that
now, 10 years after the original judgment, it has still not been implemented.
It may be that this judgment, which probably only requires that a few thousand
of the UK’s 80,000 prisoners get to vote, leads to the UK leaving the European
Convention. Ultimately, it might seem the Court was going too easy on prisoners
by getting rid of the total voting ban. But they’re still being punished: in
all the months and years of missed moments and memories. They’re still doing
their time.

I’m a woman. Deal with it

Times change. People change. Society and the law sometimes have to catch up, and catch up quick.

Christine Goodwin had changed. She was born a man but identified as a woman. She had been married with four children and was the children’s biological father. After decades dressing as a man for work but a woman in her free time, Christine began the long and difficult process of gender re-assignment. She had surgery and became a male to female transsexual. But Christine remained, in the eyes of the law, male. She could not draw a pension at age 60. She felt unable to do things which would require her to present her birth certificate, such as obtaining the winter fuel allowance and reporting that £200 had been stolen from her, as this would reveal her previous identity. The law also prevented her from marrying a man.

Christine took her case to the European Court of Human Rights, arguing that her right to private life and right to marry had been violated. The Court said that the law conflicted with an important aspect of Christine’s personal identity, which was a serious interference with her private life. Her right to marry had also been breached.

European Court of Human Rights judgment, July 2002

Because of Christine’s case, an Act of
Parliament, the Gender Recognition Act 2004, was passed to give legal
recognition to transsexual people as members of their new gender. The Act
allows them to obtain a new birth certificate and permits them to marry members
of the opposite gender. Christine passed away in December 2014. She was
one of the few transsexual people to use her name in her application to court,
because she “had nothing to be ashamed of”. Her victory strengthened the human
rights of transsexual people throughout Europe. A great legacy for a very brave
woman.

The Conservative government wants to repeal the Human Rights Act and
replace it with a British Bill of Rights. We don’t yet know what that will look
like. Meanwhile, public debate is fogged by misinformation and lack of
understanding. Human rights advocates need to convey to people why human
rights matters to them.

These three short stories about real human rights cases were first
posted on a new site, RightsInfo,
which provides clear and reliable information about why human rights matter.
The stories were written by the RightsInfo
Project Volunteers and edited by Adam Wagner. RightsInfo is turning
50 key human rights cases into plain-English stories and publishing one each
weekday. You can find the full list here.